Friday, December 16, 2016

I'm not sure which was more predictable. The fact that the late and unlamented Wild Man would react to his abrupt exit from the premises with the usual aplomb of the gamma scorned, or the fact that his tears would go undried at the Chateau.

Lucius Somesuch
Having read your “existential ontological” scribblings at Vox Popoli, Wild Man, with all of your buttkissing “please help me to understand, Good Sir” bowing and scraping, we see what a (((cucky))) midwit trolltard you are. John Locke is dead. You’re a fucking idiot. Oh, but a liar too– saruh is that YOU?! lzolzoz .

Wild Man
Lucius Fuckwad – you be so dumb …… to confuse the shiv for buttkissing. What else goes over you head buddy? Fuck ….. I bet you be owned by the women in you life. John Locke inconsequential as to western institutions? …… fuck you stupid

Hesiod
Wild Dude, you got your arse handed to you by Vox Day. Retreating to another blog to cry your gamma dreams of being the once and future king were unjustly robbed does you no good. It’s embarrassing, in fact.

I don't know why you guys keep calling him a midwit. He seems utterly normal, and uses big words like he thinks you'll be impressed that he even knows them. That's not even midwitted. It's downright dull.

This guy Wild Man has got to be black; there's no other explanation that covers it so well.

He's the perfect example of why affirmative action is so corrosive to society. He thinks he's making a cogent argument, when actually his strung-together buzzwords are incoherent, incomplete, and disjoint. He is unable to recognize answers, and unable to understand them regardless. But he he's imbued with an absurd arrogance to feel he's correct anyway.

This is the tragedy of affirmative action. Like 99.99% of its products, he's been tricked by progressives into believing he can think well, that he's some kind of intellectual who can contribute great thoughts to society. Instead all he's doing is foisting off his stupidity onto unwilling participants, wasting their time and energy and taking away from overall society just that little bit more that didn't have to happen in the first place.

How many of his type have we had now? They'll come by and pretend to be making good faith arguments trying to understand what Vox is saying but deliberately misinterpreting it. Then when their misinterpretations are rejected, they'll stomp off and claim victory.

This reminds me of the video clip of the young black women who won a "debate contest." (This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8)It boggled my mind how somebody, somewhere, actually TOLD them and TRAINED them that babbling incoherently, using buzzwords, was actually a DEBATE.WildMan must have had the same instructor.

Is it just me, or does it seem like the alpha and the gamma are really the same kind of creature.

Both are obsessed with issues of power and status, ultimately, and both are desperate to demonstrate to others their superiority and strength. Both live in the minds of others and are dependent on others reactions to them for their sense of self value.

It doesn't take a lot of psychological acuity to see the fear and insecurity that lies underneath the Alpha's desire for power and control and leadership. Ultimately, the Alpha is weak in his dependence on others reactions to him, and in his desire for power and status. He is anything but his own man who lives freely and without dependence on others.

Anyone who can look at a picture of Vox Day, Theodore Beale, and not see the insecurity beneath the rounded and slightly feminine face, the sad eyes, is not very observant. There is a strange pathos to pictures of Vox Day which has always struck me.

The gamma, as it were, is just an Alpha with worse tactics, it seems to me.

All the fear and insecurity that lies in the quest for dominance and power!

And yet the gamma and the alpha are not the only two alternatives - in fact they share the same underlying psychology. But there is another kind of psychology that people can cultivate, that of Buddhism, Taoism, and Christianity, where you cease to concern yourself with your own ego, with fear-based fantasies of domination, power, and status, and just "drop out" of the ego-game, as it were. You are neither a gamma nor an alpha - you don't play.

Wild Man is NOT black. He retreated to "bitch be trippin" hood-isms because he thinks it makes him sound manly.

Just my bet.

I am not a keen follower of the whole socio-sexuo-thing, because it's been irrelevant to my life. But I expect the gamma/alpha commonality is that one is high status and thus is permitted to act so, and the other cannot accept that he is NOT high status.

This is where I think VOx's breakdown of the sub-species works better than plain alpha/beta, because it lays out attribute/behaviour zones that are far more functional. Just acting like you think an Alpha should will NOT improve your underlying status. One, you lack the horsepower to pull those moves, and two, you've misread the moves anyway.

I think possibly the core here is "cannot take a rebuff". Most guys will do OK in social or sexual situations by "don't be shy, don't be pushy-needy", the trick is some guys only ever flip between the two states; either not engaging or, as here, refusing to stop wheedling, in the hope that if they just nag enough they will get their intellectual or physical end in.

Then they wonder why:

nobody likes themthey don't get recognitionthe only women they get are sluts ordon't respect them and ditch them, earliest opp.

The reason being that only losers let you nag your way into their circle, their business, or their knickers.

Is it just me, or does it seem like the alpha and the gamma are really the same kind of creature.... Anyone who can look at a picture of Vox Day, Theodore Beale, and not see the insecurity beneath the rounded and slightly feminine face, the sad eyes, is not very observant. There is a strange pathos to pictures of Vox Day which has always struck me.

Translation: I'm a gamma and I hate social hierarchy and the fact that others rank higher than me. Why doesn't anyone realize I am the rightful king?

You are neither a gamma nor an alpha - you don't play.

That's called omega. The ultimate losers. But you're not omega, you're too passive-aggressive and bitchy to be anything but a gamma. The pseudo-analytical mode doesn't fool anyone.

But I expect the gamma/alpha commonality is that one is high status and thus is permitted to act so, and the other cannot accept that he is NOT high status.

The only commonality is that the gamma wants to be an alpha, but can never be one or understand why he can't. There is virtually nothing in common between their behavior patterns. And for some reason, gammas always fail to understand that their actions are transparent to everyone else. It's like watching a child hide behind his hands.

Kinda what I am getting at; gamma only perceives that the alpha seems more aggressive, so he tries being a pushy creepy arsehole and it fails. He perceives the alpha as more confident so he tries talking big about himself, telling the lies he assumes the alpha must tell, and it fails. Sees persuasion, and tries wheedling, sees an agile intellect and tries to word salad projectile vomit his way to status.

It isn't fair to attack "Vox Day, Theodore Beale" for the way he looks. Whatever message you want to get from his picture is not legitimate. He can be the ugliest guy in the world, but your criticism should stick to his behavior and his arguments.

Also, being insecure isn't a moral failing. Lusting power is part of the human condition. By themselves they aren't bad per se.

@31, the points are carefully constructed such that anything other than agreement can be construed as "not directly addressing them". Vox directly addressed that as the "dishonest pedant fallacy".

There is no appropriate response to a logical fallacy other than to point out its fallacy; in fact to say "No, you're wrong."

Wild Man's entire argument is structured around a complex mess of fallacies. False dichotomy, overdrawn analogy, non sequitur, and assertions of the "if B then A, we see B, therefore A is true" kind; and, of course, the dishonest pedant.

There is no structured, correct response to it because, at the level of logic, it is gibberish.

( Anecdotally, a sure sign of gibberish is when someone who ISN'T a philosophy major starts numbering points for extended argument. )

"a sure sign of gibberish is when someone who ISN'T a philosophy major starts numbering points"

I'm guessing what's going on in such a scenario is, "I read the first two pages of the Tractatus and then skipped to the famous final sentence, but I'm bluffing like I know my Wittgenstein, which makes me smart."

31. real VD December 16, 2016 9:45 PMWild Man does rant and rave, but he does have a point:

Wild Man has no more of a point than you do.

i already pointed this out previously, Wild Man produced this gem for our edification:"darwinian existential equality"

he has attached darwinian and existential as adjectives to the abstract concept of equality.

only ...there are NO TWO physical ( existential ) objects which CAN be 'equal' ( above the quantum level ), due to QM if nothing elseANDdarwinian theory is entirely based on the idea of UNEQUAL reproductive efficiency.

ie - BOTH adjectives are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to the abstract concept of 'equality', thus cannot be used to modify 'equality' as they both preclude equality from existing as part of their foundational principles.

if you wish to consider existential as being related to the philosophy, the problem gets WORSE because Existentialism stresses the autonomy ( non-equality ) of every individual consciousness ... otherwise we would all agree about everything. thus, we are all unequal and divergent.

to even attempt to attach either concept to 'equality' demonstrates an incompetence so fundamental that there's no point in even attempting to communicate with him. he doesn't even understand an approximation of what he's attempting to say, much less the words that are actually coming out of his mouth.

GAHCindy wrote:I don't know why you guys keep calling him a midwit. He seems utterly normal, and uses big words like he thinks you'll be impressed that he even knows them. That's not even midwitted. It's downright dull.

Oh come on. Just because the condition of “belief” that he hi-lighted in that respect makes clear the intended phenomeno-ontological aspects of self-agency doesn't imply a big problem with respect to understanding information-systems algorithmic approaches – calling for nested categorizations as per grasping the logical nature of the Graeco-Roman legacy, which is untrue and beside the point but so fucking what?

the condition of “belief” that he hi-lighted in that respect makes clear the intended phenomeno-ontological aspects of self-agency doesn't imply a big problem with respect to understanding...

Obviously, the phemomenological extenuation of equality, at least per my personal and not-at-all eccentric definition, was best summed up by Locke, who I won't bother to quote, but in the actuating resonance of the egalitarian mood it is through a proper understanding of the persistence of equalitarian, rather than egalitarian, thinking that one can arrive at the nuance of the underlying issue.Since Teddie has failed to answer this argument, I get to be the prettiest pony.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Obviously, the phemomenological extenuation of equality, at least per my personal and not-at-all eccentric definition, was best summed up by Locke, who I won't bother to quote, but in the actuating resonance of the egalitarian mood it is through a proper understanding of the persistence of equalitarian, rather than egalitarian, thinking that one can arrive at the nuance of the underlying issue.

Since Teddie has failed to answer this argument, I get to be the prettiest po

Pshaw. No need to elucidate the really stinky-like normative values of this phenomeno-ontological hermeneutical exposition. Any thoughtful multicultural intersectionlist can impactfully resonate with it, but so fucking what?

On the topic of gammas, here is a quote lifted today from CH topic titled Make White Women Deferential Again"It’s time to remind White women that the Age of Scalzis is over, and the new dawn has arrived: the Rule of Renegade White Men."Scalzis is officially a cross blog term of reproach and disgust

Vox, you are confirming my point - you are so completely trapped within the perspective of status - what other people think of you - that you simply cannot imagine another perspective. When someone suggests a perspective outside of the categories that give your life meaning, you attack them the only way you know how - by more posturing, more trying to get others to think you are superior, and in general more of what got you into your pathetic state.

You simply don't know what else to do. To respond more intelligently, you'd have to abandon posturing and be able to question your beliefs - but you can't, because that would require the kind of strength you don't have.

You literally cannot believe - or accept - that there is something outside the status perspective. Confronted with the reality of it, you respond by attacking the persons status!

If it would be funny, if it weren't sad.

You may find this impossible to believe, Vox, but I am not trying to hurt you or humiliate you - personally - in any way at all.

A lack of concern with what others think of you - thus a lack of interest in the status game - is being the "ultimate loser" (!), according to you. A sadder, more enslaved state of mind I cannot imagine. You literally cannot see how enslaved you are and wear your brand proudly.

@ Plato - I am not in the least suggesting Vox is ugly or mocking his appearance. You completely misunderstood me. In fact his appearance suggests that he has more depth than his posturing and insecure attempts to be dominant would ever lead you to believe, and that is a good thing.

If you can look at his round, feminine face, and his pleading eyes and not see an insecure child hiding behind layers and layers of posturing and acting, you are not looking very closely.

But unlike you, I see this as his path to redemption, not his shame. If Vox can ever accept the truth about himself he might transcend the status perspective and abandon his childish quest for domination and concern with what others think of him.

Mike, or do you prefer Wild Man? You were hopelessly out of your depth in your first post and now you are just sinking deeper. You know nothing of Vox and less of yourself. Just give it up. You are so wrong that it isn't even particularly amusing.

You may find this impossible to believe, Vox, but I am not trying to hurt you or humiliate you - personally - in any way at all.

Of course not, dear. You are only thinking of his welfare when you call him weak, sad, pathetic, stupid, emotionally driven and effeminate. The problem is, none of the emotions, actions or qualities you ascribe to Vox are true. You are, like all Social Justice twinks do, projecting your own inadequacies on him. What's funny is that you actually believe your own script. You actually think your reality-adverse assesment of another man's character, based on exactly nothing but your own justified self-loathing, is somehow insightful and of value.

Look, you're a faggot. We all get that. It's nothing to take pride in, sure, but most faggots come to terms with it eventually. The fist step is to look at yourself honestly.

Snidely, I am not saying Vox is any of those things, not at all. I am merely describing his current behavior as reflecting some of those things. I make a distinction between him and his behavior.

Right now, his behavior is fear-based - all desire to dominate is ultimately based on fear and insecurity.

Look within yourself, Snidely, and the comment you just made to me - do you honestly think it is driven by anything other than fear and insecurity?

But my larger point, which made Vox lash out at me in such outrage and panic, was simply that there is a larger perspective.

It doesn't have to be this way. You don't have to be enslaved to what others think you. You don't have to be driven by fear to try and dominate others.

I am actually sympathetic to many of Vox's positions and the positions on this site, and I get that Vox became radicalized because SJW's viciously attacked him. But the answer is not to become an SJW in reverse, which is what Vox is.

If someone wants to fight with you, you don't necessarily fight him - that is to be controlled by his agenda. There are many people who will be extremely happy if they can radicalize you, make you into their enemy - because they need enemies to function. Do you honestly doubt that SJWs are ecstatic that they have enemies in you guys? Do you honestly doubt that a huge part of what SJWs are doing is creating enemies, because they too are driven by fear and insecurity and need enemeis to function?

SJW's want you to be like them - insecure and full of hate - and it is no accident that they create enemies wherever they go - their enemies are clones of them, and Vox is surely a clone of an SJW in reverse.

> Vox, you are confirming my point - you are so completely trapped within the perspective of status - what other people think of you - that you simply cannot imagine another perspective...

You really don't understand that Vox is a sigma, do you?

And to misstate a quote, you may not be interested in status, but status is interested in you.

Social/sexual status exists for everyone not on a deserted island, whether you like it or not. It may only be one aspect of a person's identity, but pretending it doesn't affect them or can't be discerned by their actions is disingenuous at best.

You may find this impossible to believe, Vox, but I am not trying to hurt you or humiliate you - personally - in any way at all.

I don't believe you. At all. Neither does anyone else. As I said, gammas never understand how transparent their actions are to everyone. You're obviously trying to get revenge for being humiliated here.

If you can look at his round, feminine face, and his pleading eyes and not see an insecure child hiding behind layers and layers of posturing and acting, you are not looking very closely.

Lying passive-aggression is a hallmark of the wounded gamma. And projection is the hallmark of the SJW. What name did you previously post here under?

"Do you honestly doubt that a huge part of what SJWs are doing is creating enemies, because they too are driven by fear and insecurity and need enemeis to function?"

No. Again with the amateur psychoanalysis.1. Psychoanalysis is only very slightly more scientific than voodoo. It really is a century out of date.2. Leaving that aside, you're doing very, very poor psychoanalysis.3. Even if you weren't doing bad psychoanalysis, you're attempting social-dominance strategy, which undermines your entire point, but as a final failure4. You're shit at social dominance games.

Social status has indeed been a huge part of life since we moved to agriculture from being hunter gatherers (before that, we were pretty egalitarian), and I certainly understand why people consider it important.

Which is why I think we need a better solution to it. To let preoccupation with status dominate your life is simply to be enslaved to others and to be driven by fear.

And yet there is a third option - In Vox's world, you either dominate others, or are dominated by them, you are either an Alpha or a gamma (or whatever offshoot of these basic categories). So driven by fear and insecurity, Vox quite naturally tries to be one of the dominators.

But the dirty little truth is that to be a "dominator" is to be just as much a slave as to be dominated - why not choose to be either? You don't let others dominate you, but you don't seek to dominate others.

@Vox - you can't believe anyone is not acting out of fear, anger, and revenge, because these emotions are what consume you. You understand the gamma so well because the alpha and the gamma have the exact same emotional makeup - the alpha is just better at playing the game.

Since you are motivated by revenge and a sense of humiliation, you naturally assume everyone else must be too.

Isn't it time, Vox, to step outside your narrow box and get a wider vision? The world is bigger than your categories.

It is interesting that the one thing that reliably makes people here go nuts is questioning the need to be egoistic or dominant and things like that - I can say almost anything else, criticize anything else, but not that. People literally lose their minds and start acting in deeply strange and bizarre ways.

Surprisingly, I am sympathetic to this reaction - the person trapped in the fear driven ego perspective believes with every fiber of his being that being egostistic is the only thing that will take the edge off his misery, a misery which, ironically, is caused initially by developing his ego too much. So he's trapped.

Yet for the fear-driven person, I am threatening the only thing that has ever given him any solace or relief from his inner misery.

No wonder he reacts with panic and fury.

Yet, I am trying to hurt you, but to help you. You really can rise above this tawdry obsession with dominating/being dominated and find a much better and more permanent relief from the misery you feel every day, a relief far greater than the small high you get every time you score an ego victory.

No, Wild Mike, you are trying to make yourself feel better. You know you're a pathetic, self-loathing, ineffectual loser, and you want to 1) make everyone else a pathetic loser and 2) pretend superiority on the basis of being smarter and more perceptive so you can assert social dominance and stop being a pathetic loser.

Even your claims of your motivations and emotional state are a lie to yourself, to make yourself feel better. It not only doesn't work, it can't work, because encouraging other people to be losers even more pathetic than you isn't going to work, but even if it did, you'd still be a pathetic emotionally-driven effeminate basket case.

So go weep over at file770. They seem to like this sort of masturbatory virtue signalling, as long as you blame everything on Vox. Besides, even you are likely to find a loser more pathetic than yourself there.

wreckage wrote:You know, Freud is no longer considered a reliable source by any well-educated person.

Actually, he was pretty reliable at covering up the incestuous pedophilia of the Viennese (((middle class))) by gas-lighting their children into thinking they imagined the abuse and wanted it to happen anyway.

Mike wrote:Hey kids, I've totally overcome my need for social dominance and my ego, why won't you motherfuckers just believe me rather than judging me on my actual actions and admit that it makes me better than all of you

Why does it matter if vox or anyone else is a "fear-driven person"? what the fuck is that supposed to mean? how do you know he's a fear driven person? what physical evidence do you have? Also, in what way is being a "fear-driven person" wrong or an abnormality?

most people are driven by fear in one way or another, whether it be fear of death, fear of suffering, fear of losing a loved one, fear of losing your culture or nation, etc. it seems pretty normal to me for someone to be fear-driven.

@Billy Boy,You're doing this wrong. By trying to address his "arguments", you get drawn into the frame he is trying to establish. He's not interested in your response, except insofar as it lets him continue to play his social dominance game. When you address his hallucinations, you are giving substance to them. As long as you treat him like a rational person, thats how long he can maintain his charade of rationality and assumed superiority.

You see, he thinks only the wise get to make these sorts of assertions and pretend to be above it all. Only the superior get to sneer at others and pretend to help by insulting. Only the pathetic make up faults in their opponents based only on their rational assessment of their own nature.Oops, pretty sure that last one was me, not him.

I do not feel myself to be above you at all, and you do me wrong in saying so Your words, your yone, your "arguments and your reactions prove this a lie.Stop lying to yourself. As long as you keep believing your lies, you'll remain a pathetic faggot.

Honestly, Mike, I bear you no ill will. I am merely engaged in pointing out to you that your dodges and evasions are a sad, sad, tactic to avoid making an honest assessment of yourself. So long as you keep the focus (in your mind, not in anyone else's) on other people, you can avoid assessing your own character, intelligence, and success in the world. That's the way it is with all Gammas. You hide your thoughts from yourself and think that hides them from the world.

I'm just trying to open your eyes, really, there's no hostility at all. It's jsut sad that you are so driven by a fear of honestly assessing reality and your relation to it. It drives your every waking moment, protecting the ego from the reality of your failure, you inability to excel at anything. And the one thing you need to do to correct it, you shrink from in terror.Why are you so afraid of reality, Mike? Why does it drive you into such paroxysms of denial and lashing out at others? Until you've made a cold, critical assessment of yourself that comes to something more than "I'm okay, but every successful, evidently happy person I see is really a cringing effeminate child", you're doomed to be pathetic and alone.

"It is interesting that the one thing that reliably makes people here go nuts is questioning the need to be egoistic or dominant and things like that - I can say almost anything else, criticize anything else, but not that."

They went nuts when you egoistically attempted dominance plays on someone else's blog. The thing is, and this is what makes it funny, you really truly believe you're not transparent.

Now, we can argue about your transparency; they are all saying "gamma", I personally don't have a label for it nor any interest in socio-sexual musings, but what it HAS proven to me, and I am tempted to believe that this demonstration to the audience was exactly Vox' intention, is that he has without doubt identified a behavioural category; you fit it; and his predictive model is working with such perfection as to call into doubt my... well, my doubt.

Personally I went nuts when you sexually molested logic and reason right there in front of me, just so you know.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.